Best Practices for Polygraph Examiner Certification

and Licensing Requirements

Approved by Dr. Susan Hilal on December 20, 2011

2

Best Practices for Polygraph Examiner Certification

and Licensing Requirements

A Seminar Paper

Presented to the Graduate Faculty

University of Wisconsin – Platteville

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science in Criminal Justice

Barry K. Holden

December 2011

3

ii

Acknowledgements

First, I need to thank my wife and kids for their support and words of encouragement throughout

my graduate degree work. When I first undertook this adventure, I really did not know what I

was getting myself into and without them constantly reminding me “you can do it babe” and

“you can do it dad”, I do not think I would be writing these words today.

Second, I want to thank all of my fellow classmates. Even after over a 25 year career in law

enforcement, I can honestly say that there was not a single classmate that I did not learn

something new from in every class. Their different perspectives from their varying backgrounds

offered a great deal of insight and a new way of looking at things from their points of view and

were certainly an added benefit to the individual class itself.

Third, and certainly not the least, I need to thank all of the faculty and staff at UWP. From the

professors to the distance learning staff, they were all very helpful and always available to

answer my questions and help me navigate the on-line education world. The faculty was top

notch and never failed to challenge me both academically and philosophically. I would be

remiss to not single out Dr. Hilal who was not only my professor for my first on-line course, but

also my last, as my advisor for this seminar paper. Dr. Hilal very quickly taught me the writing

expectations and standards that were expected for graduate level students. She also proved she

was up to the task of serving as my advisor for this paper. She was able to teach this old dog

many new tricks and for that I am forever grateful.

Lastly, I need to thank my employer for encouraging this endeavor and assisting with the

financing of this degree.

May God bless you all!

4

iii

Abstract

Best Practices Guide for Polygraph Examiner Certification and Licensing Requirements

Barry K. Holden

Under the Supervision of Dr. Susan Hilal

Purpose

The polygraph instrument has been around for nearly a century and is used extensively in the

private, law enforcement, and government sectors. Standardized training and licensing

requirements are common in other professions, but there is currently no such requirements for

the polygraph profession.

The purpose of this paper is to provide recommendations on how the training, educational and

certification process for polygraph examiners can be improved. It will also serve as a reference

for the 24 states that do not have any guidelines in place. This paper will also highlight the

importance of a continuing education requirement for the polygraph profession. A best practices

guide covering these areas is needed for the entire polygraph profession.

Methods

Methodology consisted of an examination of the data collected from the current federal

polygraph program guidelines for federal polygraph examiners and as well current polygraph

examiner requirements of a few selected states. The most current federal policy is contained in

the 2006 Department of Defense, Counter Intelligence Field Activity, Federal

Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Examiner Handbook. This handbook consists of 80

pages and is the most complete resource available and was used as the basis for the best practices

guidelines identified in this paper. The recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences

5

(NAS) studies conducted in 2003 and 2009 were also examined and compared to the current

federal guidelines, policies, and procedures.

Findings

The results of the data collected for this paper showed there was significant support for states to

adopt the current federal polygraph requirements, policies, and guidelines as a model best

practices policy. This best practices guide emphasizes the need for consistency with respect to

iv

training, certification process, and continuing education requirements among polygraph

professionals throughout the country. It also documented how the federal polygraph program is

already meeting some of the recommendations of the 2009 NAS study. This paper also

identified additional areas that could benefit from additional research in an effort to further

solidify the best practices policy and re-affirm the federal polygraph program as the model

polygraph program.

The implementation of the best practices guidelines recommended in this paper will add

additional creditability to the entire polygraph profession. Other professions have guidelines and

the polygraph community would be remiss to not address the issue of the 26 states that are

lacking any type of polygraph requirements. The review of these types of studies will further

serve to support the recommended educational and training requirements in the best practices

guidelines for polygraph examiners in all states.

It will assist those states that presently have requirements by improving upon the consistency of

the requirements through meeting the guidelines set forth in the model program as described in

this paper. As shown by this paper, after nearly a century, it is time for the polygraph profession

to establish nationwide best practices guidelines and policies. The standardization of the

polygraph process through a nationwide best practices guidelines will benefit both those who

administer polygraph examinations and those who undergo the polygraph testing process.

6

v

Table of Contents

Page

APPROVAL PAGE i

TITLE PAGE ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

ABSTRACT iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi

SECTIONS:

I. INTRODUCTION 7

Statement of the Problem 7

Purpose of the Study 8

Significance and Implications of the Study 8

Methods of Approach 10

Contribution to the Field 11

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 12

Introduction 12

Lie Detection – Early Efforts 12

Polygraph History – Early Development 15

7

Use of the Polygraph Instrument Today 20

Support for Polygraph Examiner Certification and Licensing Requirements 21

Example of States that currently have Licensing and Certification Requirements 23

The Importance of Continuing Education Guidelines 28

Standardized Accreditation for all Polygraph Schools 31

History of the Federal Polygraph Program 33

Conclusion 36

III. A MODEL PROGRAM – THE FEDERAL POLYGRAPH PROGRAM 38

Introduction 38

Basic Polygraph Examiner Course 38

Quality Assurance Program 39

Continuing Education Requirements 40

Research Division 41

Threat Analysis and Strategic Support Branch 42

Justification of the Federal Polygraph Program as a Model Program 43

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSIONS 47

V. REFERENCES 53

8

vi

Section I: INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

Oh what a tangled web we weave,

When first we practice to deceive!

Sir Walter Scott

The United States government administers thousands of polygraph examinations a year

for job applicants, current employees, and suspected criminals and mandates that all federal

polygraph examiners be certified to administer polygraph exams (Department of Defense

Polygraph Institute, 2002). However, according to the American Polygraph Association

(2011b), there is no nationwide standard for polygraph training, licensing or certification for

state, local or private polygraph examiners. Currently only 26 states have any type of licensing

or certification requirements.

The Department of Defense National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCCA),

formally known as the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI) conducts a 14 week

basic polygraph examiner course. This course is mandatory by all federal polygraph examiners

(DoDPI, 2001). There are many other polygraph schools that provide training at the state and

9

local level. The majority of these schools are from four to eight weeks in length. Some of these

schools are certified by the American Polygraph Association (APA), while others do not

maintain any certification (APA, 2011e). The Polygraph Place (2011) website provides a list of

both accredited and non-accredited schools. While it cannot be expected that every school will

offer the exact same curriculum, a lack of standard procedures may well have negative

consequences and repercussions that could impact the entire profession.

Standardized training and licensing requirements is common for other professions.

Professions such as police officers, attorneys, nurses, emergency medical technicians, all have

training and certification requirements. While the requirements may vary from state to state,

there is nonetheless some type of state policy in place that addresses the training, certification

and licensing requirements.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this paper is to provide recommendations on how the training, educational

and certification process for polygraph examiners can be improved. It will also serve as a

reference for states that do not already have any guidelines in place. This paper will also

highlight the importance of continuing education requirement for the polygraph profession. This

best practices guide will emphasize the need for consistency with respect to training, continuing

education requirements, and the certification process among polygraph professionals throughout

the country.

Significance and Implications of the Study

Polygraph examinations are used for criminal investigations, pre-employment screening,

and periodic security clearances updates. The implications for those who fail a polygraph

10

examination can be far reaching. It is therefore important that the process itself be as fair,

consistent, reliable and valid as possible. This can only occur by ensuring that those who

administer polygraph examinations do so in a standardized and professional manner following

established policies and procedures.

A 2003 report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found a lack of uniformity in

the certification process as a contributing factor with respect to the credibility and quality of the

process itself. The NAS report also cited the lack of standard protocols as an area of concern. A

lack of continuing education was also noted in the 2003 NAS report as a contributing factor in

the quality of the process. All federally certified examiners are required to undergo a minimum

of 40 hours of continuing education a year. There is no nationwide requirement for state, local,

and private polygraph examiners to attend any continuing education programs. A polygraph

examiner who was trained over 30 years ago could still be following outdated training

procedures and guidelines that would significantly impact how they conduct their polygraph

examinations today. However, they would still be in compliance because there is not a

mandatory continuing education requirement. Some individual polygraph examiners still prefer

an analog polygraph instrument verses the more currently advanced computerized polygraph

instrument that is utilized by the majority of examiners today. The vast differences in an analog

polygraph instrument verses a computerized instrument further illustrates the need for continuing

education. The need for a continuing education requirement for all polygraph examiners is

necessary and will improve the quality of the process.

An additional study by the NAS in 2009 examined various aspects of the forensic science

field, including polygraph, and identified several areas common to all forensic techniques that

were lacking in uniformity. The 2009 NAS study recommended a review of the current structure

11

of the entire forensic science community in this country. The NAS suggested national standards

be adopted to include best practices standards, certifications, accreditations, and a national code

of ethics. Additionally, the report stated that individuals not certified in the specific forensic

discipline should not be allowed to perform that service.

It is incumbent upon those that are involved in the polygraph profession to address the

areas of concern noted in the 2003 and 2009 NAS report. The reports conducted an in-depth

analysis of the polygraph process and noted the above described deficiencies. This paper will

address these concerns and serve a guide for those states that lack any requirements to help them

create some of these guides. For states that already have policies in place, the paper will serve to

offer additional recommendations for the establishment of state certification boards that can

maintain records of certified polygraph professionals that are available for review by the public,

similar to the state medical boards that are currently in place. This topic was an obvious area of

concern noted by the NAS studies in 2003 and 2009 and the implications and significance of this

best practices guide will serve as a valuable resource for the polygraph professionals that seek to

continually improve upon the polygraph technique that has been in existence and utilized for

over a century.

Methods of Approach

The method of approach for this paper will be to examine and explain the NCCA federal

polygraph guidelines and compare the federal requirements for polygraph examiners to the

current licensing requirements of a few selected states. The most current federal policy is

contained in the 2006 Department of Defense, Counter Intelligence Field Activity, Federal

Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Examiner Handbook. This handbook consists of 80

12

pages and is the most complete guide available and will be used as the basis for the best practices

guidelines. However, it is also understood that not every state or every examiner can meet the

federal guidelines and that is why it is also necessary to review the current polices of some

individual states in an attempt to establish best practices guidelines that are attainable by all

states and individual examiners while at the same time mirroring the federal polices as closely as

possible.

It will also examine the education level, training and certification requirements levels of

other professions in comparison to the polygraph profession and review research that has

documented the positive effects of higher education and training standards. The review of these

types of studies will further serve to support the recommended educational and training

requirements in the best practices guidelines for polygraph examiners in all states.

Contribution to the Field

The best practices guideline recommendations will serve as a one stop resource for

administrators and policy makers to justify improved education, training, and certification

standards for polygraph examiners. As more states adopt polygraph requirements and

certifications, this best practices paper will provide the information necessary to successfully and

properly accomplish the task.

The best practices guidelines will also address the concerns noted earlier by the NAS in

their 2009 report. The NAS found a lack of uniformity in the certification process as a

contributing factor with respect to the credibility and quality of the process itself and this paper

will provide recommended guidelines to ensure the concerns of the NAS are also adequately

addressed.

13

It is it is critical to ensure that those administering polygraph examinations are doing so

in a consistent and standardized manner and this paper will fulfill that obligation. The profession

itself needs to recognize the importance and significance of these guidelines and be encouraged

to have as a goal the implementation of these best practices guidelines on a nationwide basis.

The public deserves no less, and the profession should be held to high standards given the impact

and ramifications regarding the possible outcomes of a polygraph examination.

Section II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

The following review is divided into nine parts examining the various aspects of the

polygraph process to including how the instrument was developed, how it is currently used,

educational requirements, and the various licensing and certification requirements. Additionally,

the review will explain how the polygraph school for the federal government evolved throughout

the years. The first part explains some of the first attempts at detecting deception prior to the

invention of the polygraph. Part two details how the polygraph instrument was developed. The

third part of this section looks at the current use of the polygraph instrument in the field today.

The fourth part offers a review of why there is a need for polygraph examiner licensing and

certification requirements. Part five examines three states that currently have in place

certification and licensing requirements. The sixth part of the review explains the importance of

continuing education guidelines. Part seven examines the need for a standardized accreditation

process for all polygraph schools. Part eight provides an overview of how the federal

government established their polygraph school and the standards it established.

Lie Detection – Early Efforts

14

According to Gordon and Fleisher (2002) even in the earliest of times, individuals have

always had a desire to distinguish the untrustworthy from the trustworthy. Ever since individuals

banded together as a group for common social benefits such as protection of property and

individuals there have been certain members of the group who deviated from the social norm. It

was the actions of these individuals that if not corrected, tended to harm or destroy the social

group entirely. Therefore, the need to detect lies and discover those who have been untruthful

has been essential for both social and physical survival. Some early attempts were related to

superstitions and religious beliefs that a moral god would identify the truthful and reveal the

untrustworthy. Several of the early attempts at detecting deception had some resemblance to, and

were based on, a foundation of a physiological or a psychological basis. At the same time, other

early processes used torture or the fear of continued pain as the basis for the methods.

Gordon and Fleisher (2002) state one of the earliest most primitive forms of detecting

deception recorded was the “trial by combat”. As indicated by the name, this usually involved

two individuals deciding the “truth” by engaging in combat. The belief was that the person with

the truth on his side would triumph. In reality, it was likely the victor was the one with the

greatest combat skills. The belief or justification at that time for this test was a righteous God

would never allow injustice to triumph.

As explained by Gordon and Fleisher (2002) in early time in China, a rice-test was used

to determine truthfulness. An accused person would be made to chew a handful of dry rice and

then try to spit it out. The belief at the time was that if the rice became wet and was easy to spit

out the person was considered to be truthful. If a person was not being truthful his mouth would

be dry, the rice would stick to his mouth and thus it would not be easy to spit out. The view at

this time was that it was God who made the rice either wet or dry in the individual’s mouth. In

15

reality, this “test” was based on the physiological occurrence of inhibited activity of the salivary

gland induced by stress or fear. The honest person’s salivary gland activity was normal which

caused the rice to become wet and simple to spit out. It has not been clearly established how the

Chinese came to use this test, but today is clear that this type of test did involve certain aspects of

the autonomic nervous system which slow or reduce salvation when a person is under fear or

threat.

McManus (2008) explained other societies used a hot iron or a red hot bed of coal as a

means for determining guilt or innocence. If a person could touch or hold a red hot iron bar or

walk barefoot across a bed hot of coals without being burned they were determined to be

truthful. Various other cultures used similar methodologies of trial by ordeal to determine guilt

or innocence.

McManus (2008) examined the early efforts at detecting deception in India that involved

priests coating a donkey’s tail with black soot and placing the donkey in a dark room. Suspected

criminals were then brought one at a time into the darkened room and told that when a guilty

person pulled the donkey’s tail, that if the donkey brayed it was a sign of guilt. Truthful

individuals having nothing to fear would pull the tail and come out with black on their hands.

Whereas, guilty individuals would go into the room, but would not pull the tail for fear of being

caught and as such did not get black hands. However, the guilty individuals were quick to claim

they too had pulled the tail, but were readily identified by the priest as dishonest due to the lack

of any black on their hands. The person who claimed he pulled the tail but had clean hands was

then subsequently assumed to be untruthful and was punished accordingly.

16

According to McManus (2008) during the 18th

& 19th

century the science of phrenology

or physiognomy was introduced and involved various measurements of an individual’s skull,

bone structures and various other facial features. At that time a hypothesis was proposed that

truth or deception could be determined by measurement of the various facial features. The

Columbia Encyclopedia (2007) credits Francis Gall with the development of the science of

phrenology and his work examined the nervous system within the brain and proffered that

separate individual parts of the brain were responsible for different mental processes that

occurred throughout the nervous system of the human body. According to Gordon and Fleisher

(2002) other physiologists began to study the effects of stress and fear on the respiratory and

cardiovascular system in an effort to further understand an individual’s autonomic nervous

system. At the same time, others in the scientific community were attempting to identify a

means in which the changes could be measured reliably and in a timely fashion.

Lykken (1998) explains that as rudimentary as they may have been, these techniques are

often identified as forerunners or precursors of the present day detection of deception efforts.

Regardless of the technique or belief, they all tried to in some way to measure the fear that a

person who is lying has regarding being caught and the subsequent physiological reactions and

emotions that the fear factor is likely to induce. As a forerunner of the polygraph instrument,

these techniques and research were still highly debated and at that early stage of the process were

unsuitable for any type of efforts at standardization.

Polygraph History – Early Development

As explained by Gordon and Fleisher (2002) the history of the polygraph can be traced

back to 1895 when an Italian criminologist named Cesare Lombroso used the first instrument to

17

detect deception by utilizing a combination of blood pressure and pulse readings to investigate

crimes. Lombroso’s instrument consisted of a water filled tank referred to as a volumetric tank

in which a subject would place their hand. The immersed fist was sealed across the top of the

tank by a rubber membrane. The level of the liquid would rise and fall as the heartbeat

quickened as was verified by the monitoring of the pulse. The changes in pulse rate were

recorded and transferred to a revolving smoke drum. Lombroso postulated that the most emotion

evoking questions would result in the greatest change in the level of the liquid. It was these

changes in volumetric displacement that Lombroso believed were directly related to individual

emotions and the detection of deception. The vial of liquid was later replaced with a rubber

glove that could be placed on the hand and sealed. The glove was then inflated and changes in

air pressure within the glove due to heartbeat fluctuations were recorded on a revolving cylinder.

As discussed by Schmalleger (2007) Lombroso is often referred to as the “father of modern

criminology”. Lombroso is credited with the development of the Positivist School of

criminology. The Positivist School involved the task of observation first and then comparison of

the observation to a specific theory. Although some of his early observations that identified

certain criminal traits and his position that as a result of these traits, some individuals are born

criminals were later discounted, Lombroso nonetheless has been credited with being the first

criminologist to use an accepted scientific method in the study of criminology.

According to DoDPI (2001) during the early 1900’s there were several important theories

developed that later led to the development of the polygraph instrument. Vittorio Benussi was a

scholar at the University of Graz and conducted many experiments targeting respiration in the

detection of deception. Benussi hypothesized that if the length of the inspiration cycle was

divided by the length of the expiration cycle; the ratio would be greater before answering

18

honestly than after, and greater after lying than before. During this same time frame others were

studying the Galvanic Skin Response (GSR), i.e. sweat gland activity, with respect to using

changes in the GSR in the detection of deception. French scientist Charles Fere is noted as the

first to conduct research on the changes produced in GSR as a result of the exposure of an

unpleasant stimulus to a test subject. German scientist Werner Sticker is credited with first

suggesting the use of the GSR in detecting deception. Sticker proffered that the GSR was under

the influence of the brain’s mental processes and the will of the individual has no effect on the

outcome of the GSR.

As noted by DoDPI (2001) in 1909, Harvard University Professor of Law Hugo

Mustenberg was the first to introduce the idea of actually using scientific instrumentation to

measure physiological changes that were indicative of deception. Mustenberg recommended that

the physiological changes in courtroom witnesses be monitored during their testimony to ensure

the witness was not attempting deception. He was also the first to recommend that simultaneous

measurement of as many physiological responses as possible would be more reliable.

Specifically, Mustenberg recommended the monitoring of eye movement, muscle contractions,

cardiovascular activity, electrodermal activity (GSR), and breathing patterns. As a result of

Mustenberg’s work, a large amount of research began to appear with respect to the detecting of

deception and physiological responses. In 1918, Howard Burtt, a Harvard University professor

conducted additional research with respect to lie detection and partially confirmed Benussi’s

theory of the respiration inspiration-exhalation as being directly related to the detection of

deception. As explained by Lyken (1998) during the same time period, Dr. William Marston,

who had been a student of Professor Mustenberg’s at Harvard published a research paper

hypothesizing that the changes in blood pressure readings were also likely related to the

19

detection of deception. Marston is also credited with being the first person to coin the phrase “lie

detector”. Marston also created the comic strip character of Wonder Woman who had a magic

golden lasso that when placed around someone it caused the person to tell the truth. Some refer

to Marston as the grandfather of the polygraph while others in the 1930’s dismissed some of his

work as grandstanding.

According to Gordon and Fleisher (2002) from the late 1800’s to the early 1900’s various

methods of detecting deception were being proposed and studied. With the encouragement of

forward thinking Chief August Vollmer of the Berkley, California Police Department, John

Larson a psychologist and lawyer who worked with the police department sought to advance the

science of lie detection. In 1921 he built an instrument which he called a polygraph. The

instrument simultaneously measured and recorded changes in blood pressure and respiration.

Larson became the first person in law enforcement to administer polygraph exams to criminal

suspects as a means of assessing the suspect’s truthfulness. Lykken (1998) further explains that

Larson was very successful with some of his first polygraph examinations. For example, a

female college student had been shoplifting at a nearby store. The only description the store

clerk could give was the suspect lived in one specific dormitory on campus but was unable to

identify her further. There were 38 female residents of the dormitory and Larson was able to test

each one of them. One of 38 women responded more strongly to the relevant questions in

comparison to the other women. The woman was question further and ended up giving a full

confession.

According to Lykken (1998) Leonarde Keeler was a Stanford University psychology

student who worked with Larson and Chief Vollmer. Keller further developed and improved the

polygraph instrument by adding a third physiological measuring component known as the

20

galvanic skin reflex (GSR). Additionally, Keeler developed a portable polygraph instrument and

obtained the first patents on the device. DoDPI (2001) states the two channels developed by

Larson and the third added by Keeler are still the three main physiological responses that are

monitored and recorded by the modern polygraph instruments in use today. Keeler is credited

with a number of other improvements in the polygraph instrument. He developed a system of

small fountain pens that were used to record the physiological changes on graph paper. He

designed the kymograph that served as the mechanism to pull the graph paper at a constant speed

while the fountain pens were recording the information on the paper. He also developed several

of the polygraph questioning techniques many of which are still in use today. As well as

Berkley, Keeler spent time in Chicago and Los Angeles and administered polygraph

examinations in high profile investigations such as the St. Valentine’s Day massacre, security

testing of those involved in the Oak Ridge A-bomb testing, and examination of suspects in the

theft of the Hesse Crown jewels as well as many other significant investigations.

According to DoDPI (2001) while in Chicago, Keeler met John Reid who had joined the

Chicago Police Department (CPD) after finishing law school. Reid worked in the CPD

Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory as a polygraph examiner. After several years of actually

administering polygraph examinations Reid, was instrumental in developing the control question

and comparison questioning technique. Variations of both of these formats are still in worldwide

use today. Both Keeler and Reid were the first individuals to establish polygraph schools. Reid

authored several books regarding truth, deception and polygraph techniques. Reid was also the

first polygraph examiner to advocate use of movement sensors to detect any movement by the

subject during the polygraph examination.

21

As explained by DoDPI (2001) Cleve Backster was a student in one of John Reid’s

polygraph schools. Backster later became the Director of the Keeler polygraph school. Backster

had also served as an interrogation instructor at the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation School and

is credited with the development of the polygraph program for the Central Intelligence Agency.

Backster currently owns the Backster School of Polygraph located in San Diego, California.

Backster developed the Backster Zone Comparison Test (ZCT) for the U.S. Army polygraph

school in 1961. The ZCT test is still commonly used by polygraph examiners today. Backster

postulated several theories and concepts relating to the polygraph including psychological set,

anticlimax dampening, spot analysis, outside issue dampening, total chart minutes, and the 7

position numerical scale. Most important of all, according to Lykken (1998), Backster was

responsible for instituting the practice of numerical scoring. Prior to the introduction of

numerical scoring by Backster, all polygraph examinations were scored using a global scoring or

analysis technique. The Backster numerical scoring system made it less likely that a polygraph

examiner’s preconceptions regarding a subject’s honesty would influence their interpretation of

the polygraph charts. Studies have shown that polygraph examiners trained in the numerical

method of chart evaluation can achieve high levels of agreement when they independently assign

a score to the same set of polygraph charts. Despite the studies showing increased accuracy

when using numerical scoring, there still was no attempt on the part of the polygraph profession

to form any type of best practices guide that would offer standardized training, certification or

licensing requirements.

Use of the Polygraph Instrument Today

According to the International League of Polygraph Examiners (2009) polygraph

examinations are conducted by polygraph examiners worldwide in the private, law enforcement

22

and government sectors. The polygraph is most actively used in the United States of America,

Mexico, Israel, Ukraine, Russia, South Africa, Colombia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore,

Canada, Saudi Arabia, Hungary, and the United Arab Emirates. There are at least 57 other

countries currently using the polygraph instrument and several manufacture their own polygraph

instrument. As reported by Kholodny and Eliseev to the APA in 2010, the number of polygraph

examinations in Russia including the federal government, law enforcement and private

examinations number approximately 125,000 annually.

According to the NAS (2003) the Federal Government conducts thousands if not

hundreds of thousands of polygraph tests each year. These tests consist of tests of job applicants,

security updates of current employees, criminal specific examinations, counter intelligence, and

counterterrorism. Almost all the federal law enforcement agencies use the polygraph instrument

as well as the federal intelligence agencies and the Department of Defense. The number of

polygraph examiners at each agency varies from one or two to several hundred.

As reported by the Department of Defense (DoD) in its 2002 report to Congress nine

agencies within the Department of the Defense (DoD) maintain operational polygraph programs.

The DoD uses the polygraph as an investigative tool to assess the credibility of individuals and to

detect deception regarding criminal investigations, counterintelligence cases, and other

intelligence operations. In fiscal year 2002, the DoD agencies alone conducted approximately

11,566 polygraph examinations. This was the last year these numbers were made available to

the public.

Currently, there is no system in place in the United States to track the countless number

of polygraph examinations administered by state and local law enforcement agencies as well as

those administered by private polygraph examiners.

23

Support for Polygraph Examiner Certification and Licensing Requirements.

Given the enormous number of polygraph examination being conducted every year, the

NAS reports recommending standardization should come as no surprise to most polygraph

professionals. As recommended in 2003 by the NAS, while other methods of detecting

deception are currently being studied most are several years away from being marketable and

that is only if the current level of funding remains consistent. As suggested by the NAS, a best

case scenario would involve a vast increase in research funding to increase the likelihood of

developing an alternative to the polygraph instrument. Despite the same recommendations being

given by the NAS in their 2009 report covering all the forensic sciences, the current economic

situation does not offer much in the way of additional funding for the foreseeable future.

According to the 2003 report on the polygraph by the NAS, there will probably never be

total agreement regarding the use of the polygraph, especially in the context of pre-employment

screening. However as they also reported, there is a scientific basis with respect to criminal

specific issues polygraph examinations in that the polygraph can discriminate truth telling from

lying at rates well above chance. The Academy of Sciences also proffered that the use of the

polygraph does elicit admissions and confessions and can serve as a deterrent to undesired

activity.

The polygraph profession is of one many forensic science disciplines that the 2009 NAS

study recommended establish some type of national standard and further recommended that if an

individual was not certified in a specific forensic technique they should not be involved in

performing that technique. Despite the recommendations by the NAS in 2009, the polygraph

profession, with exception of the federal polygraph community, continues to maintain licensing

and certification requirements at the state level if they have any requirements at all. The states

24

with some type of licensing protocols appear to be operating independently as shown by the

earlier review of just three states licensing procedures. There was no consistency in the training

requirements, licensing or continuing education requirements.

The polygraph profession would be remiss to ignore the recommendations of the NAS

and not establish uniformity in certification and licensing requirement for all polygraph

examiners on a nationwide basis. According to the APA in 2011, they are currently the largest

organization of polygraph examiners consisting of approximately 2,600 members (APA, 2011c).

The creation of a best practices guide is part of the APA’s Strategic Plan for 2010-2014 (APA,

2011d). However, this best practices guide would only apply to those who are members of the

APA and at the present time is intended to be a voluntary requirement for APA members.

Failure to adhere to the best practices guide could in worst case circumstances lead to expulsion

from the APA, but that does not carry much weight for an examiner who conducts polygraph in

any of the states that lack any type of licensing requirements. While the intentions of the APA

are a step in the right direction, the APA lacks any authority to impose any type of nation-wide

best practices guide for the polygraph community as a whole (APA, 2011f).

Certainly, the APA has both its membership and the service the organization provides in

mind and is moving in the right direction by including the formulation of a best practices guide

as part of their strategic plan. If this guide does come to fruition, it will be part of the first

attempts at establishing a best practices guide. However, this guide is only speculation, and at

this juncture, as the best practices guide being suggested by the APA will be a voluntary best

practices guide that will not ensure any type of nationwide standard (APA, 2011d).

Example of States that have Licensing and Certification Requirements

25

Currently there are only 26 states that have adopted any type of mandatory certification

and or licensing requirements (APA, 2001b). A brief overview of some of the states that

currently have licensing requirements reveals some similarities in the licensing process, but also

documents various differences in the requirements from state to state.

The state of Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (DLR) has codified the

position of polygraph examiners under Title 10, Occupations related to Law Enforcement and

Security, Chapter 1703. Chapter 1703 requires that all examiners in the State of Texas be

licensed. It also establishes a committee to oversee the licensing process and this committee

reports directly to the DLR. The committee membership is comprised of two qualified

polygraph examiners form a governmental law enforcement agency, two qualified polygraph

examiners from the private sector and one member of the general public. The committee’s role

is that of an advisor to the DLR and is tasked with delineating the educational requirements for a

polygraph examiner, the subject matter to be included in a licensing examination, any technical

issues related to polygraph, and administering and enforcing Chapter 1703. To be a licensed

polygraph examiner in the State of Texas, the following requirements must be met, (1) the

individual must not have been convicted on any offense that is related to the responsibilities and

duties of a polygraph examiner, (2) they must either have a bachelors degree from an accredited

university or college or have a minimum of five years of active investigative experience

proceeding the date of the application, (3) has graduated from a department approved polygraph

examiners course and has completed a minimum of six months of as an intern polygraph

examiner or has satisfactorily completed at least twelve months as a intern polygraph examiner,

and (4) has successfully passed an examination conducted the DLR to the determine the

individuals competency for a polygraph license. Prior to issuing a license to perform polygraph

26

examinations, the individual must provide proof of an insurance policy or surety bond in the

amount of $5,000 that requires the obligor of the policy or bond to pay, up to the amount of the

policy or bond all judgments recovered against the license holder for any illegal or wrongful act

committed by the licensee during the course of administering a polygraph examination. The

licensee is required to renew their license annually. Under Chapter 1703, subsection 255,

continuing education is addressed by the statement that the DLR may prepare, recognize, or

implement continuing education programs for both intern polygraph examiners and fully

licensed examiners.

However, the caveat is added at the end of the section that states any participation in

continuing education programs is voluntary. The chapter also covers confidentially of polygraph

examination results, minimum polygraph instrumentation requirements, and defines the licensee

denial and disciplinary process. Additionally, it covers the revocation process of a polygraph

license and the criminal penalties that are applicable for those who falsely represent themselves

as licensed polygraph examiners or violates any of the other provision in Chapter 1703. The

criminal penalties are classified as class B misdemeanors punishable by a fine of no more than

$1,000 and or confinement in jail for up to six months (Texas Department of Licensing and

Regulation, 2011).

The State of Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance (DCI) are tasked with

the licensing requirements for polygraph examiners. The Tennessee DCI license requirements

are (1) the individual must be at least twenty-years old, (2) a citizen of the United States, (3) be

of good moral character, (4) not have any misdemeanor or felony conviction involving moral

turpitude, and (5) meet the education and experience requirements. The educational and

experience requirements are further defined as graduation from a polygraph school accredited by

27

the APA and have a bachelor from an accredited university or college. Those lacking a bachelor

degree may qualify for a polygraph license by having two years of college and five years of

criminal investigative experience, or five years of counterintelligence work, or five years of

private investigative work. Additionally, all applicants for a polygraph license must satisfactory

complete an internship of six months or show proof of prior meeting prior polygraph licensing

requirements from another state.

In 2009, the DCI added the requirement of 12 hours of continuing education per year and

there is no mention of this continuing education requirement being voluntary. The polygraph

licenses for Tennessee are renewed on a bi-annual basis. There was no reference to any type of

criminal penalties associated with not being licensed or license suspensions and or revocations.

However, there was a link on the site that allowed an individual to look up any civil disciplinary

actions taken against those licensed by the DCI (Tennessee Department of Commerce and

Insurance, 2011). The link was broken down by month and covers the years 2002 to 2011. A

random sampling of the disciplinary actions during those years found mostly violations by

licensed contractors, realtors and cosmologists. The penalties rendered were ranged from license

suspension, revocation and or civil fines. In January, 2009 one individual was assessed a civil

penalty of $250 for failure to meet the continuing education requirements. It should be noted

that this action was noted under the heading of Private Investigation and Polygraph Commission

and it is unknown if the failure to meet the continuing education requirement was part of the

private investigator license requirement or the polygraph license requirement (Tennessee

Disciplinary Action Report, January 2009).

The State of Oregon, Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST,

2011) is responsible for the enforcement of the polygraph licensing standards and certifications

28

as mandated by the Oregon Revised Statues, Chapter 703 (Oregon Revised Statues, 2011b) and

Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 259, Division 20 (Oregon Administrative Rules, 2011a).

The requirements to be a licensed polygraph examiner in the State of Oregon are (1) at least 18

years of age, (2) a citizen of the United States, (3) not have been the subject of any behavior

during the past 10 years that would indicate the individual is not suited to perform the duties of a

polygraph examiner, (4) submit one fingerprint identification card to the Oregon State Police, (5)

have received a bachelor’s degree from and accredited university or college or a high school

graduate with at least five years of investigative experience, (6) have successfully completed a

polygraph examiners training course, and (7) have passed an examination administered by the

DPSST. If these requirements are met, the individual is granted a trainee license to conduct

polygraph examinations.

As a trainee, the individual has to submit at least 20 of the first 100 polygraph

examinations conducted to an Oregon generally licensed polygraph examiner. Once the trainee

has conducted 200 polygraph examinations and demonstrated their proficiency in the field of

polygraph through an oral interview with the polygraph licensing committee they are granted a

general polygraph examiners license. Every licensed polygraph examiner must renew their

license annually and every two years each licensed examiner must successfully complete 30

hours of continuing education.

The polygraph licensing committee is comprised of five members, four of which must be

currently certified general polygraph examiners. Of the four certified polygraph examiners, one

must be from the Oregon State Police, one from a county sheriff’s department, one from city

police agency and one from the private sector. The administrative rules do not define who the

fifth member of the committee should be; they only state the committee must be comprised of a

29

minimum of five members. Under the Oregon Statues Revised Statues, Chapter 703, the SPSST

is granted the authority to suspend, revoke or refuse to issuance a license to practice polygraph to

anyone who fails to follow any of the nine rules as defined in Chapter 703, Section 210. The

SPSST also has the authority under Chapter 703, Section 990 to enforce criminal violations of

the polygraph licensing process as Class A misdemeanor. All of the licensed general and trainee

or intern examiners are listed by their first and last names and license expiration date on the main

page of the polygraph DPSST website (DPSST, 2011)

While this is just a review of three of the 26 states that have licensing and certification

requirements, the various differences in polygraph certification and licensing requirements from

state to state are easily noticeable. Additionally, despite being two of the most populated states,

currently neither California nor New York has any type of licensing or certification requirements

for polygraph examiners (APA, 2011b). In 2010, Suffolk County, New York was the only

county in the State of New York that required polygraph examiners to be licensed. However,

according to the APA, Suffolk County stopped issuing polygraph examiner licenses in February,

2010 (APA, 2011a).

The Importance of Continuing Education Guidelines

As in most professions, the requirement for continuing education is tantamount to staying

current with new laws, changes in technology, new and update procedures. In the modern

electronic society of today, what may be all right and acceptable one day may not be the same

way the next day, week, month, and certainly year. Therefore the need for continuing education

is an important part of a best practices guidebook for polygraph examiners. The three states

licensing requirements that were reviewed earlier contained the recommendation of continuing

education from being voluntary to a mandatory requirement of 15 hours per year.

30

Research has documented that the better an individual is trained, the better they perform.

One noted similarity in all of three of the states reviewed was the desire for the individual to

have a bachelor degree or a minimum of five years of investigative or intelligence service. Yet,

they did little to address the area of continuing education. In Texas continuing education was

voluntary, Tennessee mandated 12 hours per year and Oregon required 15 hours per year.

As noted earlier, the requirement for continuing education is common in most

professional fields. Firefighters, doctors, lawyers, realtors, teachers among others all have

specific continuing education requirements. The need for a requirement for continuing education

in all areas of forensic sciences has also been recommended by the NAS study in 2009. A

review of a few published studies reveals not only the positive results of continuing education,

but also the overall improved performance by those with college degrees. Even though the three

states that were reviewed regarding polygraph licensing requirements all included as part of their

basic requirements to apply for a license a bachelor’s degree of minimum of five years

investigative type experience there was little to no emphasis on continuing education

requirements. Given the research, both a bachelor degree and continuing education requirements

should be part of a best practices guide for polygraph examiners.

A 2005 study by Bostrom examined how a police officer’s educational level affected

their work habits. Bostrom noted that many social scientists believed that police officers with

higher educational levels were directly related to the officer’s abilities to effectively carry out

their duties. Bostrom studied the educational, demographic and work related data from police

officers in Saint Paul, Minnesota. Bostrom looked at that data over a three year period and found

that officers with a bachelor degree had the work habits consistent with officers that had an

additional ten years of experience. He also found that officers with bachelor degrees had less

31

disciplinary actions, fewer traffic collisions, and more commendations than officers that did not

have a college degree. This group of officers also had used less sick time than officers that did

not have a four degree. Bostrom also noted that beginning in 1982, the State of Minnesota

required all new police officers were required to have a minimum of a two year degree and even

given that requirement, there was still a significant difference in the data that further reinforced

those with bachelor’s degrees had higher rates of effectiveness in overall job performance skills.

A 2005 report by Lane documented some of the many benefits of continued education in

the field of law enforcement in general, but the same benefits could certainly be attained in the

more focused specialty of that as a polygraph examiner. Lane offered that while there are many

effective continuing education opportunities available for law enforcement officers the selection

of the correct program is as important as the program itself. Lane believed the opportunity for

networking was an important consideration when looking for continuing education opportunities.

This consideration could be especially helpful for polygraph examiners who operate

independently or are part of a one or two person polygraph unit. It would be beneficial for

individual polygraph examiners to have an established network of fellow professionals in which

they could reach out to and discuss issues and get their perspective on specific ideas or questions

that may have arisen. Lane concluded the report by stating that continuing education

requirements can have both immediate benefits and or the benefits may come in the years ahead

through the establishment of a network of others involved in a similar profession. Lane believed

that continuing education enhances the skills, knowledge, and abilities of law enforcement

officers that will benefit not only the individual officer, but the agency and the community they

serve.

32

A 2007 report by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) reported on the outcome of a 2004

NIJ study that examined the history of educational programs in the field of forensic sciences and

addressed the problems associated with the lack of any best practices guide for the basic

qualifications, the type of curriculum that should be included, the training, and the need for

continuing education for those already in the forensic science field. In the 2007 report, the NIJ

reviewed the implementation of the recommendations of the panel of 47 experts that had been

convened by the NIJ in 2004 to examine the shortfalls in the educational programs associated

with the forensic sciences. The 2004 panel stated that continuing education should be considered

part of the overall professional development process and included in any program. The panel

stressed that the continuing education requirement should be structured and documented by both

the agency and the individual. They recommended that the forensic science field establish and

oversee a process that documents all professional development and continuing education. They

proffered that continuing education is important to facilitate consistency within the specific

discipline. They further add that professionalism is expected in the forensic science field and

therefore the need for continuing education is vital to maintaining that level of professionalism.

Additionally, they added that neglecting continuing education requirements can lead to failure to

meet the programs goals and quality requirements. They stated continuing education was an

essential part of any program and was a necessity to ensure the continuing professional

development of those involved in their specific area of expertise. The 2007 NIJ report found that

only 11 universities had received accreditation in the field of forensic science and despite the

recommendation of the panel in 2004; there is still no nationally recognized standards for

forensic science programs or continuing education.

Standardized Accreditation for all Polygraph Schools

33

According to the APA (2011e), there are currently sixteen accredited polygraph schools

in the United States and thirteen in foreign countries. The APA is responsible for issuing the

accreditation. The schools must first meet a list of standards set by the APA before becoming

formally accredited and must maintain these standards throughout their accreditation. The

accredited schools also undergo periodic inspections to ensure the standards set forth by the APA

are being followed. According to the Polygraph Place (2011), there are at least seven non-

accredited polygraph schools in the United States although there did not appear to be any

additional reliable data to support this claim. A review of a few of the accredited schools will

further illustrate the need for a national standardization and accreditation process with respect to

the basic training requirement for all polygraph examiners.

The Virginia School of Polygraph is located in Manassas, Virginia and their basic

polygraph examiner training course is a ten week course consisting of 320 hours of training. The

cost of the basic course is $4800 and lodging is not provided (Virginia School of Polygraph,

2011).

The Marston Polygraph Academy is located in San Bernardino, California and their basic

polygraph examiner training course is an 8 ½ weeks course consisting of 340 hours of training.

The cost of the basic course is $3900 and lodging is not provided (Marston Polygraph Academy,

2011).

The Backster School of Lie Detection is located in San Diego, California and their basic

polygraph examiner course is an 8 week course consisting of 320 hours of training. Students

must provide their own laptop computers. The cost of the course is $4700 and no lodging is

provided (Backster School of Lie Detection, 2011).

34

The Arizona School of Polygraph Science is located in Phoenix, Arizona and their basic

polygraph examiners course is an 8 week course consisting of 320 hours of training. The cost of

the course is $5000 and no lodging is provided (Arizona School of Polygraph Science, 2011).

The Texas Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Polygraph School is located in

Austin, Texas and their basic polygraph examiners course is only open to law enforcement

officers consists of 400 hours of trainings. Students must provide their own laptop computer and

onsite lodging is provided. The cost of the course is $5000 (Texas DPS Law Enforcement

Polygraph School, 2011).

The standardized accreditation on a nationwide basis would ensure that all basic

polygraph examiners course are teaching the same curriculum regarding the basic polygraph

skills, techniques, and protocols. The number of teaching hours should also be standardized to

further enhance the basic polygraph examiner students are all getting the same level and content

of instruction.

History of the Federal Polygraph Program

The original U.S. Army Polygraph School was established in 1951 as part of the Provost

Marshal General School at Fort Gordon, Georgia. The first basic polygraph examiners class

graduated that same year. In September 1962, the Provost Marshal School was realigned as part

of the U.S. Army Military Police School (USAMPS) and renamed the USAMPS polygraph

school. In 1975, USAMPS and the polygraph school transferred to Fort McClellan, Alabama. In

November 1986, USAMPS Polygraph School was renamed the Department of Defense

Polygraph Institute (DoDPI) (The origin and evolution of the NCCA, 2010c).

In 1983, National Security Decision Directive No. 84 (NSDD 84) was signed by the

president and directed the expansion of security programs. Subsequently, in 1985, Congress

35

passed a bill directing and authorizing the Secretary of Defense to institute a program of

counterintelligence polygraph examinations for military, civilian, and contractor personnel

whose duties involved access to classified and highly sensitive compartmented information.

Based upon these directives, DoDPI expanded its curriculum to address increasing concerns in

the counterintelligence area. A short time later, DoDPI transitioned from a vocational/technical

polygraph training school to an educational institute in PDD. In April 1988, as a result of this

mission expansion construction of a new building at Fort McClellan was undertaken. This multi-

million dollar facility was dedicated in November 1989 to support DoDPI’s educational mission

in law enforcement and counterintelligence issues. During this time, an agreement was signed

with Jacksonville State University (JSU), Jacksonville, Alabama, to award a Masters Degree in

Polygraph with the core requirements being taught at DoDPI (The origin and evolution of the

NCCA, 2010c).

In June of 1993, the Joint Security Commission (JSC) was established to address security

concerns within the Federal Government, specifically within the defense and intelligence

community. As part of its process, the JSC specifically reviewed polygraph procedures within

the intelligence community. In February 1994, the JSC report was published and contained

several security recommendations specifically relating to polygraph. One of the

recommendations was to consolidate DoDPI and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

Polygraph School to form a polygraph institute that would conduct all PDD education and

training of government polygraph examiners. An additional recommendation was to develop

standards within the intelligence polygraph community to ensure consistency in the application,

administration, and quality control of screening polygraphs. The JSC also recommended that

DoDPI: be the clearing house for a robust, interagency-coordinated and centrally funded research

36

programs concentrating on developing valid and reliable security and applicant screening tests;

investigation of countermeasures; and conducting developmental research on the various PDD

techniques, instrumentation, and analytical methods (The origin and evolution of the NCCA,

2010c).

In May of 1999, the operational responsibilities for DoDPI were placed under the DOD

Defense Security Service (DSS). As part of the Base Realignment and Closure Act, in June of

1999, DoDPI moved to its present location at Fort Jackson, South Carolina (The origin and

evolution of the NCCA, 2010c).

In July of 2000, graduate level academic credit was recognized for the DoDPI

Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Program (PDD) by Argosy University in

Washington, DC. Argosy University agreed to transfer graduate credit for the PDD program

towards a Master Degree in Forensic Psychology, Forensic Psychophysiology track. In January

of 2003, DoDPI was accredited by the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and

Schools to award a Certificate of Graduate Study in the Psychophysiological Detection of

Deception (The origin and evolution of the NCCA, 2010c).

In January of 2007, the Deputy Secretary of Defense signed a Directive renaming DoDPI

the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment (DACA), a change that reflected a broadening

of vision that included all technologies useful in the assessment of credibility (The origin and

evolution of the NCCA, 2010c).

In 2008, operational control of DACA was transferred to the DOD Defense Intelligence

Agency. At this time, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence recommended the

redesignation of DACA as the National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCCA), citing the

need for a formal designation change to the NCCA would serve to acknowledge through

37

Congressional recognition of NCAA as the national center within the federal government to

provide a clear focal point with respect to all matters in the area of credibility assessment issues.

This recommendation to designate the organization as the NCCA was approved by the Deputy

Secretary for Defense on August 26, 2010 (The origin and evolution of the NCCA, 2010c).

The NCCA is a federally funded institution that is tasked with providing graduate and

continuing education courses in Psychophysiological Detection of Deception (PDD). The

mission of NCAA is to (1) research, develop, and validate credibility assessment tools to

enhance and increase operational capabilities, (2) provide strategic and analysis support to the

federal polygraph programs, (3) manage the Quality Assurance Program that is tasked with

development and implementation of PDD standards and provided oversight of these standards

for all federal polygraph programs, (4) train and qualify federal and DOD personnel for careers

as PDD examiners, and (5) oversee and manage the PDD continuing education certification

process and program for all federal agencies (NCCA PDD Program and Continuing Education

Catalog 2011a).

The goals of the NCAA are (1) offer flexible methods of instruction to meet the

exceptional learning style of students, (2) to develop, implement and provided the necessary

oversight for standards involving the performance and conduct in PDD examinations, (3)

facilitate and enable students so that they may learn in-depth knowledge of the PDD examination

process, (4) ensure that continuing education programs are available for professional career

development in the PDD field, (5) continue the high standing as an research and academic

institute, and (6) continue to conduct research in all areas of credibility assessment and PDD

examinations (NCCA PDD Program and Continuing Education Catalog 2011a).

Conclusion

38

This literature review has demonstrated that for many centuries mankind has searched for

the truth in one way or another. As stated by the academic and scientific reviews of the

polygraph process there is areas for improvement. The ongoing research for a better instrument

at detecting deception will likely continue for years to come. However, in the meantime, the

polygraph profession would be remiss to not address some of the valid concerns discussed in the

review of the available literature. For the 26 states that do have some type of certification and

licensing process, it is a step in the right direction. However, even in the states that were

reviewed that had polygraph requirements there was a notable difference in the various

certifications, licensing and continuing education requirements. The research studies noted in

the literature review and support the fact that individuals with higher education levels tended to

perform at a higher level than those with only high school diplomas. The review also noted

studies that indicated the necessity for continuing education requirements in any area within the

field of forensic sciences. The studies also support the positive outcomes that are realized when

continuing education is mandated. The review also documents the lengthy 60 year process that

the federal government has undertaken to insure that best possible training is made available to

all federal polygraph examiners. While the polygraph instrument may have been in use for

almost a century, the technology has certainly increased and the need for a standardized best

practices guide is more important than ever before.

39

III. A MODEL PROGRAM - THE FEDERAL POLYGRAPH PROGRAM

Introduction

The following section explains the federal polygraph program and is divided into five

parts. The first part looks at the basic polygraph examiner course that all federally certified

polygraph examiners must successfully complete. Part two explains the quality assurance

program and standards that must be meet by all federal agencies that utilize the polygraph

instrument. The third part will explain the requirements for continuing education. Part four will

explain the role of the federal government in conducting research related to the detection of

deception. Part five will define the function of the threat analysis and strategic support branch.

Part six will analyze and explain why the federal polygraph program should be considered the

model polygraph program.

Basic Polygraph Examiner Course

According to the National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCCA) (2011c) all federal

polygraph examiners are required to attend the basic polygraph examiner course located within

40

the NCCA at Ft. Jackson, South Carolina. The NCCA is part of the Department of Defense,

Defense Security Service. The NCCA basic polygraph examiner course consists of 520 hours of

classroom training provided over a period of 14 weeks. Lodging on base is provided at no cost

to students. Students must be U.S. citizens, at least 25 years of age, hold a bachelor’s degree

from a university or college accredited by the U.S. Department of Education, and have at least

two years of prior investigative experience. All students must successfully pass a polygraph

examination prior to admission and also hold a current security clearance.

The basic examiner course is taught at the graduate level and accredited by the Council

for Independent Colleges and Schools. Upon successful completion of the basic polygraph

program, students are awarded a Certificated of Graduate study in the Psychophysiological

Detection of Deception. Upon graduation from the basic polygraph examiners course students

are eligible to transfer 15 credits of graduate study toward a master’s degree at an accredited

college or university (NCCA PDD Program and Continuing Education Catalog 2011b).

Once individuals have graduated the basic polygraph examiners course at NCCA, they

are considered intern polygraph examiners at their respective federal agencies. According to

NCCA policy, intern examiners must complete a minimum of 25 polygraph examinations while

they are being monitored by a senior polygraph examiner. Upon successful completion of the 25

polygraph examinations the intern examiners are granted full status as polygraph examiners and

are able to independently conduct polygraph examinations (NCCA PDD Courses, 2011c).

Quality Assurance Program

In September 1996, following the recommendations of the Joint Securities Commission

and under the guidance and direction of DoD, DoDPI developed and established a Quality

41

Assurance Program (QAP) for establishing and maintaining PDD standards within the Federal

Government. While participation in the QAP is mandatory for DoD polygraph programs, all

Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies with PDD programs voluntarily agreed to

participate. QAP inspection teams consisting of PDD experts evaluating the policies and

procedures, structure, approval process, statistics, continuing education, and implementation of

technology for an inspected agency’s polygraph program. In 1998, QAP drafted Federal

standards for establishing PDD program procedures and facilitated a discussion with the Federal

polygraph program managers that led to adoption of the Federal PDD Examiner Handbook as the

standard within the Federal polygraph community. The implementation of these procedures is

monitored by QAP through biennial inspections of each of the participating agencies (NCCA

Quality Assurance Branch, 2011d).

It is important to note that although the latest version of the Federal PDD Examiner

Handbook (2006) is denoted “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY”, the entire handbook is readily

available on as an open source document on various polygraph websites. One of the important

areas within the handbook with respect to the QAP process defines the need for an established

Quality Control Program (QCP) within each respective agency. The QCP within the various

federal agencies is responsible for reviewing all polygraph examinations conducted by their

individual examiners. It is the job of the QCP program personnel to either concur or non-concur

with the individual examiners polygraph results. This second level of review of every polygraph

examination is a necessary requirement to insure objectively of the polygraph process. It is

important to note that some state and local agencies have a quality control process that is similar

to that of the federal government there are also many agencies that only employ a single

examiner and there is no second level of review. The same can be said for most private

42

polygraph examiners. The quality control process is an important element of the overall

polygraph procedure and yet it is not being conducted in a majority of instances outside of the

federal government.

Continuing Education Requirements

In 1996, DoDPI was established as the Executive Agent for the Federal Polygraph

Continuing Education Certification Program (FPCECP). This program requires every examiner

employed by the Department of Defense (DoD) to complete a minimum of 80 hours of relevant

training every two years. Non-DoD agencies are also encouraged to participate in this program

and allow the NCAA to be the depository for all federal examiners continuing education hours.

The FPCECP requirement can be met in a variety of ways. As the primary source of polygraph

education and training, DoDPI presents a varying schedule of approximately 18 courses with

each course generally providing 40 hours of training to attendees. Additionally, a limited

number of hours may be amassed through agency in-service training. Other training

opportunities include professional, scientific, and academic offerings. Examples include the

American Polygraph Association (APA) Annual Seminar, seminars conducted through the

Society for Psychophysiological Research (SPR), and the Advanced Polygraph Studies Program

presented by the University of Virginia. The NCAA maintains records on all federal polygraph

examiners continuing education requirements and insures that every federal examiner is meeting

these requirements. Those polygraph examiners who fail to meet the minimum requirements are

de-certified as federally trained examiners. (NCCA, Federal Polygraph Continuing Education

Certification Program, 2011b).

Research Division

43

In January 1999, DoDPI began an effort to broaden its presence in the scientific and

academic communities. In response to the need for more advanced technical expertise, DoDPI

reorganized its Scientific Review Committee to develop an up to date research agenda. In

addition to providing funding to investigators, DoDPI offers temporary post-doctoral positions,

visiting faculty positions, and sabbatical assignments to bolster its research efforts. NCCA is

looking to take advantage of the highest quality university labatories and industrial technology

that may have ideas or contributions regarding the subjects of interest. NCCA has been

awarding external research awards since 1987. This effort to collaborate with institutions of

higher learning is an adjustment in the strategic plan for increasing the amount of research to: (a)

investigate countermeasures and counter-countermeasures; (b) evaluate the validity of

Psychophysiological Detection of Deception (PDD) techniques used by the federal government,

and (c) conduct developmental research on PDD techniques, instrumentation, and analytic

methods. While NCCA evaluates all research proposals within its mission objectives, those

which address the topics of new technology, applied topics, deterrence, special projects, and

PDD Data Analyses receive priority in the funding process (NCCA Research Branch, 2010a).

Threat Analysis & Strategic Support Branch

The Threat Analysis and Strategic Support (TASS) Branch serves as the national

collection point for polygraph and credibility assessment (CA) countermeasure detection and

awareness activities. They are responsible for providing polygraph support in the form of

technical and operational assistance and advice to strategic law enforcement and

counterintelligence efforts. The TASS Branch provides comprehensive and refresher PDD

countermeasure and counter-countermeasure instruction for Federal examiners. Federal

44

examiners are required as part of the continuing education requirement to have a minimum of

four hours of this specific type of training every two years. The TASS Branch also collects,

maintains, and analyzes field data to identify and report trends. The TASS Branch also conducts

initial investigation and analysis into CA methods, techniques, sensors, and equipment. They

investigate, develop, and provide specialized and advanced CA instruction in methods and

techniques to assist intelligence, security and law enforcement operations. Most of the work of

the TASS Branch is at the classified level and therefore is not available in the continuing

educational offerings to polygraph examiners that are not federally trained and do not hold a

current and valid security clearance (Threat Analysis & Strategic Support Branch, 2010b).

Justification of the Federal Polygraph Program as a Model Program

In analyzing all the data that was collected for this paper, there are several areas that

support the Federal polygraph program as the model program. First, the federal program already

meets some of the 13 recommendations of the NAS 2009 report on the forensic sciences. It is

also important to note that polygraph examiners that have been certified as federal examiners

through the NCCA program are highly sought after by outside employers. In reviewing the

states with polygraph standards, the federal program far exceeds any of the states requirements.

The basic examiner program taught by the NCCA is also far more in-depth in both content and

length of the course.

The 2009 NAS study made 13 separate recommendations for areas of improvement in the

field of forensic sciences. Each of these 13 recommendation contained many sub-

recommendations. In analyzing the recommendations, it was found that four of the

recommendations are not related in any way to the polygraph profession, i.e. standardized

fingerprint data collection, medical examiner systems and procedures, crime lab educational

45

certifications and educational requirements, and evidence collection and preservation procedures.

In examining the data, the remaining nine recommendations could in some way be related to the

polygraph profession. Of those nine recommendations, six were either already fully or partially

addressed by the federal polygraph program.

The first recommendation of the NAS study in 2009 addressed the area of both research

and practice of the specific field within the forensic sciences. Under nine individual sub-sections

among other things, they recommended the establishment of a best practices guide, conducting

peer reviewed research, and the continued pursuit of new technologies in the forensic sciences

field. These three recommendations are already are already in place at NCCA. The Federal

Examiners PDD Handbook (2006) acts a best practices guide and it is mandated that all federal

polygraph examiners adhere to these guidelines. The NCCA research division oversees and

conducts peer review research and continues to study new technologies that may serve as a new

and improved alternative in detecting deception (NCCA, 2010a). Many of the other sub-sections

dealt with DNA evidence and educational standards for colleges and universities and were not

applicable to the polygraph profession.

The second recommendation explained the need for standardized terminology within the

forensic science field. As related to polygraph the Federal Examiners Handbook (2006) provides

and defines the standard terminology to be used by all federal polygraph examiners.

The third recommendation addressed the area of accuracy, reliability and validity within

the specific disciplines in the forensic science field. This is an ongoing are area of research by

the NCAA Research Division (NCCA, 2010a). Various published studies have specifically

46

addressed the subject of reliability and validity with respect to the polygraph instrument as noted

by the earlier 2003 NAS report.

The next recommendation that is already being addressed by the NCCA is that of human

error and human observer bias. The NAS recommended standardized operating procedures to

reduce and minimize the source of human error and the potential bias in forensic polygraph

practices. The human element is an area related to the polygraph process and is addressed by the

NCCA program. Attempts at elevating human error are addressed in the Federal Examiners

Handbook (2006) through the quality control process in which a second polygraph examiner

blind scores the charts that were collected by the original examiner and either concurs or non-

concurs with the results. The NCCA Research Division has also performed studies using pre-

recorded question “askings” during the actual chart collection portion of the polygraph process in

an effort to identify and alleviate possible examiner bias during the question presentations

portion of the polygraph examination (NCCA, 2010a)

The fifth recommendation that is already part of the NCCA Program is that of individual

certifications (NCCA, 2011c). The NAS recommended that forensic science professionals

should all meet some type of certification. All federal polygraph examiners are required to be

certified by the NCCA through their basic polygraph examiner course and internship prior to

being certified as polygraph examiners.

The sixth recommendation made by the NAS in 2009 specifically addressed quality

control and assurance procedures that should be in place to ensure the accuracy of the forensic

procedures and the work product of the individual practitioners. It advised the quality control

process should be developed to identify mistakes, ensure that the standard operation procedures

47

are being followed, and note any areas that need improvement. The NCCA Quality Assurance

Program already has these protocols in place and conducts inspections on a biennial basis of all

federal polygraph programs (NCCA, 2011d).

A review of three on-line employment sites (USA Jobs, Indeed One Search, One Job, &

American Association of Police Polygraphists, 2011) revealed eighteen job announcements

seeking polygraph examiners. Of the 18 announcements, almost 70% contained as part of the

job requirements successful completion of the NCCA basic polygraph examiners course as a

requirement for the position. As evidenced by the basic job requirements of these employers,

they too consider the federal polygraph program to be a model program.

When analyzing the other polygraph schools it is readily apparent that the NCCA Basic

Polygraph Examiners Course exceeds any of the other polygraph schools in both the course

length and course content. While other schools offered basic examiners courses ranging from

320 to 400 hours of instruction, the NCAA Basic Examiner course mandates 520 hours of

instruction. The NCAA Basic Examiner Course is also an accredited course and upon

completion of the course, individual students receive 15 credits of graduate study that can be

applied towards a master’s degree at an accredited university. This accreditation is unique to the

NCAA course and not offered by any other polygraph schools (NCCA, 2011b). This too serves

as another attribute that only further justifies the NCCA Program as the model program.

While the federal polygraph program administered by the NCAA does not meet all of the

recommendations and sub-recommendations made by the NAS in 2009, it certainly currently

addresses some of them. The same cannot be said for any of the 26 states that currently have

polygraph certification and licensing requirements.

48

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSIONS

In order to further solidify the federal polygraph program as the model polygraph

program the following needs to be accomplished, (1) the remaining 3 recommendations of the

2009 NAS report should be examined and instituted where applicable, (2) a content analysis of

actual confirmed polygraph field cases and their outcomes should be researched and published,

(3) a published comparison study of confirmed polygraph field cases should be performed

comparing the results obtained by federally trained polygraph examiners to those of examiners

trained by other polygraph schools, and (3) an effort should be made by the federal polygraph

program to establish contact with states lacking any type of polygraph certifications and attempt

to educate them on the importance of the requirement for certifications and the recommendations

of the 2009 NAS study. These tasks would only serve to further solidify the federal polygraph

program as the model program and add creditability to the entire polygraph profession.

The federal government already has in place a model polygraph program that meets many

of the recommendations of the NAS in their 2009 study that covered all aspects of the forensic

sciences. As shown by an overview of the NCCA program, many of the deficiencies noted by

the NAS are already in place at the NCCA. The NAS report recommended establishing a

49

mandatory best practices guide the encompassed basic training standards, accreditation,

certification, proficiency testing, and a code of ethics encompassing all the forensic sciences.

This paper addresses those areas and offers field tested proven recommendations that the states

lacking requirements can readily adopt.

States that currently lack any type of polygraph certification process would be remiss to

not look at the federal polygraph program as a model program. The states should follow the

federal program because it currently already meets many of the recommendations of the 2009

NAS study, offers the most intensive training, and is favored by employers who are seeking

qualified polygraph examiners. All too often people want to reinvent the wheel, when there is

already a wheel in place that works and in this case that wheel is the federal polygraph program.

The enhanced formal education requirement has been shown to be an area that only

benefits the profession. As explained by Hilal and Erickson (2010) the State of Minnesota has

maintained a two year college degree requirement for entry level police officers for more than 30

years. This requirement has resulted in a more educated state-wide police force that has at the

same time made police officers from the State of Minnesota more marketable than officers from

other states lacking the two year education requirement. The same can be said for the NCCA

program, polygraph examiners who have successfully completed the federal basic polygraph

examiner course are more sought after by outside employers. This again lends credibility to why

the federal polygraph program should be considered the model polygraph program.

This paper is meant to serve as a one stop resource for states that do not have any

licensing or certification requirements. The APA (APA, 2011a) provides a directory of state

polygraph associations and according to the most current directory; all 50 states have polygraph

50

associations. Why there are 24 states without any type of licensing or certification requirement

for polygraph examiners, but yet they have a state polygraph association? The polygraph

profession is being remiss to not address this area and it is hopeful that this paper will encourage

and assist in that endeavor by supporting those who are trying to make the effort and work with

their respective states to adopt polygraph requirements. For states that already have some

polygraph policies in place, this paper will be a valuable one stop resource for them to be able to

quickly compare their state requirement to other states as well as the model policy requirements

of the federal governments polygraph program to be able to readily define the areas in which

they may be lacking. No one likes change, but sometimes change is necessary and this paper

certainly illustrates the need for the implementation of nationwide best practices for polygraph

examiner licensing and certification requirements.

The 2009 NAS report examined the entire forensic disciplines and noted many

deficiencies in all areas of forensic science. Unlike the 2003 NAS report which specifically

focused on the polygraph process, an assessment of the polygraph process was not included in

the 2009 NAS report and polygraph was only casually mentioned a couple of times in the entire

315 page report. Nonetheless, among the 13 recommendations in the 2009 NAS report was the

recommendation that Congress should appropriate funds and establish a new federal agency that

would have oversight responsibilities encompassing all forensic science disciplines including

polygraph. Just this one recommendation contained nine additional sub recommendations that

would need to be implemented by the new agency. Given the current economic situation, the

creation of a new and separate federal agency is not likely to occur anytime in the near future,

but what can occur is those states that do not have any polygraph requirements can be handed a

51

copy of this paper and gain a better and more complete understanding of why licensing and

certifications are necessary for the polygraph profession.

The 2009 NAS report essentially stated the entire forensic science community, polygraph

included, has problems that can only be best addressed at the national level. They proffered that

this would take a commitment from the government to examine the current structure that

supports the forensic science system in this country. They added the only way to achieve such a

goal would be to have effective leadership at the highest levels of both the state and federal

governments to achieve a set of national standards that would be adhered to by all the states.

They also note that this undertaking would involve a significant infusion of federal funds. While

this might not occur anytime in the near future, the seed has been planted.

The model federal polygraph program policy delineated in this paper along with a

comparison to some states polices gives the reader a more thorough understanding of what needs

to be implemented. The best practices are already in place as shown in the paper by the model

federal polygraph program. This paper addresses many of the concerns noted in previous studies

that proffered the polygraph profession was lacking in the area of certification and licensing

requirements.

While the APA indicates it has started the process of trying to develop a best practices

guide as part of its strategic plan and has taken the steps to offer an accreditation process for

polygraph schools, there still is a significant variation in the schools in the curriculum and

training hours for basic polygraph examiners. The APA is an professional organization

composed of polygraph examiners who seek to maintain some level of standards in the

profession, but at the same time they are a private organization that does not have any statutory

authority and as such any recommendations they make regarding best practices are only

52

voluntary in nature and even then only applicable to those who are members of the organization.

The APA should use this paper as a resource already available that compares and contrasts some

states polices to that of the model policy of the federal polygraph program.

The need for continuing education is also a recommendation that should not be taken

lightly. As noted earlier, most professions already have continuing education requirements and

while they may vary from state to state there are nonetheless requirements in place. While the

three states with licensing and certification requirements varied in their continued education

requirement, they at least had some type of requirement. What about the polygraph examiners in

the other 24 states that currently do not have any type of licensing, certification or continuing

education requirement? The model recommended in this paper addresses the need for continuing

education and a system to track and manage the educational requirement to ensure they are being

met.

The polygraph continues to be subject to a great deal of public and scientific controversy.

According to the 2003 report on the polygraph by the National Academy of Sciences, there will

probably never be total agreement regarding the use of the polygraph, especially in the context of

pre-employment screening. However as they also reported, there is a scientific basis for specific

issue criminal polygraph examinations in that the polygraph can discriminate truth telling from

lying at rates well above chance. The 2003 NAS report also found that the use of the polygraph

does elicit admissions and confessions and can serve as a deterrent to undesired activity.

The ramifications of a failed polygraph examination can be far reaching and impact an

individual’s future for years. While a failed criminal polygraph examination cannot be used

against the accused in most courtroom settings, the failure of a pre-employment polygraph

examination can affect an individual’s ability to pursue a desired profession.

53

Despite the continued controversy and especially post 9/11, the use of the polygraph is

both a necessary and needed tool in the continuing effort to combat crime and terrorism both

foreign and domestically. There is no doubt that research should continue to search for a better

means at detecting deception, but until a better means is found, the polygraph must and should

remain an integral part of any law enforcement or intelligence agency arsenal.

Unfortunately, there is no magic truth telling wand or golden lasso and until that time

comes, the polygraph instrument in the hands of a well trained examiner is the best viable

alternative. Law enforcement, military, and intelligence agencies can never rest in their pursuit

for justice and the goal of a sounder and safer America. For the foreseeable future, the

polygraph instrument will continue to play an important role in that effort.

As supported by this paper, there is a need for mandatory certifications and licensing

requirements for all polygraph examiners. The only question remaining is, are the individual

states going to take the steps recommended in this paper or is it going to take the federal

government stepping in and mandating a model program as described in this paper that addresses

training, certification, accreditation, licensing and continuing education requirements.

54

SECTION V: REFERENCES

American Association of Police Polygraphists, Inc. (2011). Polygraph careers. Retrieved on

December 14, 2011, from http://www.policepolygraph.org/careers.htm.

American Polygraph Association (2011a). State associations listing. Retrieved on December 10,

2011, from http://www.polygraph.org/section/about-us/state-associations-listing.

American Polygraph Association (2011b). State licensing boards. Retrieved on July 10, 2011,

from http://www.polygraph.org/section/state-licensing-boards-0.

American Polygraph Association (2011c). American Polygraph Association mission statement.

Retrieved on November 13, 2011, from http://www.polygraph.org/section/about-

us/mission-statement.

American Polygraph Association (2011d). American Polygraph Association strategic plan 2010-

2014. Retrieved on October 15, 2011, from http://www.polygraph.org/apa-strategic-

plan-2010-2014.

American Polygraph Association (2011e). American Polygraph Association accredited schools.

Retrieved on June 26, 2011, from http://www.polygraph/org/section.training.apa-

accredited-polygraph-schools.

American Polygraph Association (2011f). The American Polygraph Association: Dedicated to

the truth. Retrieved on June 25, 2011, from http://www.polygraph.org.

Arizona School of Polygraph Science (2011). Retrieved on November 20, 2011, from

http://www.azpolygraphschool.com.

Backster School of Lie Detection (2011). Retrieved on November 20, 2011, from

http://www.backster.net.

Bostrom, M. (2005, October). The influence of higher education on police officer work habits.

The Police Chief, 72:10 7-14.

Columbia Encyclopedia (2007). Biography of Francis Gall (6th

ed). New York: Columbia

University Press.

55

Department of Defense, Counterintelligence Field Activity (2006, October). Federal

psychophysiological detection of deception examiner handbook. Ft. Jackson, South

Carolina.

Department of Defense (2002). Fiscal year 2002 report to congress on the DoD polygraph

program. Retrieved on October 20, 2011 from

http://www.fas.org.sgp/othergov/polygraph/dod-2002.html.

Department of Defense, Polygraph Institute (2001, January). Psychophysiological detection of

deception 504 polygraph history handout, Ft. Jackson, South Carolina.

Gordon, N. & Fleisher W. (2002). Effective interviewing & interrogation techniques. San

Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Hilal, S. & Erickson, T. (2010, June). Minnesota police education requirement: A recent

analysis. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Retrieved on December 16, 2011 from

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/june-2010/the-

minnesota-police-education-requirement.

Indeed One Search All Jobs (2011). Polygraph examiner jobs. Retrieved on December 14,

2011, from http://www.indeed.com/q-polygraph-examiner-jobs.html.

International League of Polygraph Examiners (2009). Who uses polygraphs? Retrieved on

December 10, 2011 from http://www.theilpe.com/faq_eng.html.

Kholodny, Y. & Eliseev, A. (2010). International trends in the APA. Retrieved on December

10, 2011 from http://www.polygraph.org/editorials.

Lane, T. (2005, May). Personal and departmental benefits of continuing education. FBI Law

Enforcement Bulletin,74: 1-6..

Lykken, D. (1998). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. Reading,

Massachusetts: Perseus Books.

Marston Polygraph Academy (2011). Retrieved on November 20, 2011, from

http://www.marstonpolygraphacademy.com/.

McManus, B. (2008). Liar: The art of detecting deception and eliciting responses. Leesburg,

VA: Global Traveler.

National Academy of Sciences (2009). Executive summary - strengthening forensic science in

the United States: a path forward. Retrieved on March 1, 2011, from

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html.

56

National Academy of Sciences (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. Washington, D.C.:

The National Academies Press.

National Center for Credibility Assessment (2011a). Psychophysiological detection of deception

program and continuing education catalog. Retreived on November 20, 2011 from

http://www.daca.mil/docs/Education_Catalog.pdf.

National Center for Credibility Assessment (2011b). Continuing education program. Retrieved

on November 22, 2011, from http://www.daca.mil/ce_program.htm.

National Center for Credibility Assessment (2011c). Psychophysiological detection of deception

courses. Retrieved on November 21, 2011, from http://www.daca.mil/pdd_courses.htm.

National Center for Credibility Assessment (2011d). Quality assurance program branch.

Retrieved on November 20, 2011 from http://www.daca.mil/br_QAP.htm.

National Center for Credibility Assessment (2010a, August). Research branch overview.

Retrieved on March 22, 2011, from http://www.daca.mil/br_res.htm.

National Center for Credibility Assessment (2010b, August). Threat analysis & strategic support

branch. Retrieved on March 22, 2011, from http://www.daca.mil/br_tass.htm.

National Center for Credibility Assessment (2010c, August). The origin and evolution of

NCAA. Retrieved on March 22, 2011, from http://www.daca.mil/history.htm.

National Center for Credibility Assessment (2006, October). Federal psychophysiological

detection of deception handbook. Counterintelligence field activity technical manual.

(DoD Directive 5210.48). Ft. Jackson, SC: Author.

National Institute of Justice (2007, May). Addressing shortfalls in forensic science education.

Retrieved on November 19, 2011 from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/216886.pdf.

National Institute of Justice (2004, May). Education and training in forensic science. Retrieved

on November 19, 2011 from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/203099.pdf

Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. (1988) (3rd

ed). New York: Oxford University Press.

Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training, polygraph. Retrieved on

November 18, 2011 from

http://www.oregon.gov/DPSST/SC/Polygraph.shtml#Intern_Study_Guide.

Polygraph Place (2011). Polygraph schools. Retrieved on November 21, 2011 from

http://www.polygraphplace.com/docs/schools.htm.

Schmalleger, F. (2007). Criminal justice today (9th

ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Education, Inc.

57

State of Oregon (2011a) Polygraph licensing requirements. Retrieved on November 18, 2011,

from http://tn.gov/commerce/boards/documents/disActRpt_0810.pdf.

State of Oregon (2011b). Revised statues, chapter 703 – truth verification and deception;

investigators. Retrieved on November 18, 2011 from

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/703.html.

State of Texas (2011) Polygraph licensing requirements. Retrieved on November 13, 2011,

from http://www.license.state.tx.us/polygraphlaw.htm.

Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance (2011). Private investigation and polygraph

commission, polygraph examiner requirements. Retrieved on November 18, 2011, from

http://tn.gov/commerce/boards/pi/peReq.shtml.

Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance, Disciplinary action report (2009, January).

Retrieved on November 18, 2011, from

http://tn.gov/commerce/boards/documents/disActRpt_0810.pdf.

Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (2011). Polygraph examiners occupations code.

Retrieved on November 13, 2011, from

http://www.license.state.tx.us/polygraph/polygraphlaw052709.pdf.

Texas Department of Public Safety (2010, November). Law enforcement polygraph school.

Retrieved on November 20, 2011, from

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/polygraph/index.htm.

The Polygraph Place (2011). Listing of accredited and non-accredited polygraph schools.

Retrieved on June 25, 2011, from http://www.polygraphplace.com/docs/schools.htm.

USA Jobs (2011). Polygraph examiner. Retrieved on December 14, 2011, from

http://www.usa.jobs/polygraph.examiner.

Virginia School of Polygraph (2011). Welcome to the Virginia school of polygraph. Retrieved

on November 20, 2011, from http://www.virginiaschoolofpolygraph.com.